EU´s New Pact on Migration and Asylum – for better or for worse?

by Tina Gudrun Jensen

Tina Gudrun Jensen, researcher at MIM – Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare, Malmö University and ReROOT coordinator of arrival integration research.

On November 7, 2023 MIM – Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare, Malmö University, which is part of the ReROOT team, held a Symposium on perspectives on the EU´s New Pact on Migration and Asylum in Brussels.

The New Pact was initially proposed in 2020 and negotiations are due to conclude in February 2024. The aim of the New Pact is to find a common EU framework for migration, a set of regulations and policies to create fairer, efficient, and more sustainable migration and asylum processes for the European Union. The New Pact entails new asylum and migration management regulations, a new EU asylum agency, uniform rules on asylum applications, new rules governing migration crisis and force majeure situations, a new screening regulation, supposedly better reception conditions, an updated EU fingerprinting database, a common asylum procedure, and a new EU resettlement framework.

 

The panel members for the symposium in Brussels were Johan Ekstadt, doctoral researcher from Dept. of Global Political Studies, Malmö University, Magdalena Ulceluse, assistant professor in International Migration and Ethnic Relations at MIM, Malmö University, Dr Basak Yavcan, head of research, Migration Policy Group and Dr Hanne Beirens, Migration Policy Institute Europe.

 

The panel debated the positive and negative aspects of the New Pact. On the positive side, the panel mentioned that many member states were willing to come to the negotiation table and collaborate on the New Pact. Yet, the panel also pointed out many shortcomings of the New Pact. Generally, the panel members questioned whether the New Pact will resolve the core problems of the asylum system. They pointed out that as more administration and decision-making will happen at the border, even more people will be stuck at there. This is in line with a general critique of the New Pact that procedural rules appear to be so complex that they may be unworkable in practice. Consequently, the new procedures may lower the protection standards for asylum seekers in Europe as it is expected that there will be more use of the border procedure, which will lead to more people in detention centres at the external borders, and thus to substandard asylum procedures and more pushbacks.  Also, the New Pact does not do away with the system of the Dublin regulation, i.e., migrants can still be sent back to Greece.

 

Another criticism that the panel raised was that the New Pact does not put priority to special vulnerable groups such as children and victims of domestic violence. This also reflects a general criticism against the New Pact for not considering exemptions from the border procedure for vulnerable people. Furthermore, the panel pointed out that regular migration related to labour as well as low-skilled migrants has little priority in the New Pact, which appears to prioritise only the `best and brightest´ migrants.

 

The change in EU policy represented by the EU´s New Pact on Migration and Asylum is important for the ReROOT project, which has a focus on the development of migration regimes, and provides insights into arrival processes as they take place within policy contexts. The ReROOT project is concerned with the many constraints in migration and reception systems, and hence observe any changes that may improve the involved procedures.  

 
Share

POLICY BRIEF | Infrastructuring migration is possible: building on local coalitions towards translocal, enabling policy environments with a future

by Karel Arnaut ( KU Leuven )

Policy recommendations occupy a rather unusual place in ReROOT. The project is not aiming to produce high-level substantive policy recommendations for national governments and EY policy makers to formulate measures for handling migration and advance integration of newcomers. Instead it tries to empower arrival processes, prompt local multi-actor collaborations towards integration and bring in local and regional policy makers to asses the potential of these ‘integration coalitions’, inviting them to enhance the opportunity structures for these to prosper. In short, ReROOT seeks to build policy from below. What it expects from the (trans)national policy makers is to create a discursive environment that allows the local infrastructural work to succeed. On the rebound, the (trans)national policy makers are invited to draw from the local integration stories in order to enrich the translocal enabling discursive environment. To explain and illustrate this process, is the overall aim of this policy brief.

 

Read here: Policy Brief ReROOT

 
Share

Workshop Senegal | CHANTIERS’URBAINS: Sharing research methods on migratory situations in African cities: The case of Saint-Louis, Senegal

CHANTIERS’URBAINS
Partager de méthodes d’enquêtes sur les situations migratoires dans les villes africaines:
Cas de Saint-Louis du Sénégal

Gaston Berger University, Saint-Louis, Senegal

La migration internationale depuis l’Afrique de l’Ouest vers l’Europe fait l’objet depuis plus de vingt ans de toutes les attentions médiatiques et politiques, la focale des financements et des programmes étant mise sur l’actualité, dans le but de donner des clefs pour appréhender les processus les plus immédiats. Dans cet atelier, nous nous appuierons sur les recherches en sciences sociales qui rappellent la profondeur historique des mobilités sur le continent africain ainsi que l’importance des circulations Sud-Sud.

La tenue de l’atelier à l’Université Gaston Berger de Saint-Louis sera l’occasion de revenir, entre autres, sur la configuration de la Vallée du Fleuve Sénégal comme espace de mobilité dans la longue durée, qui a connu de multiples reconfigurations. Plus particulièrement, ces journées ont pour objectif de considérer les spatialités et les temporalités de la réception et de l’installation des migrants dans la ville de Saint-Louis.

Il s’agira de relever les pratiques urbaines quotidiennes ordinaires des populations migrantes arrivées à Saint-Louis, leurs sociabilités mais aussi les formes de leur engagement citoyen au niveau local, voire transnational et qui participe à la construction d’une légitimité sociale à l’échelle locale.

Les chercheurs, anthropologues et sociologues, interrogeront les formes et les modalités multiples de participation quotidienne des populations migrantes à Saint-Louis, notamment dans leurs interactions aux politiques publiques qui leurs sont destinées.

Programme

  • Jour 1: Échanges autour des méthodes utilisées dans les enquêtes dans le domaine des migrations
      • Comment l’accueil des populations migrantes se déroule-t-il ? De quelles manières interagissent-elles avec la société urbaine, dans quels lieux, par quels réseaux ? Qu’est-ce qui concrétise l’accueil ? Comment des formes d’hospitalité autres que celles de l’État sont-elles déployées, qui viennent justement mettre en tension la gestion des populations migrantes par la force publique ?
      • Quels sont les lieux de passage et points d’ancrage des populations migrantes ? Quelles compétences déploient-elles, quelles ressources mobilisent-elles pour se déplacer et s’ancrer dans la ville ? En quoi l’étude de ces trajectoires et de ces lieux donne à voir la manière dont les migrants peuvent prendre part à la ville ?
      • Comment observer l’insertion des populations migrantes dans l’espace urbain ? Comment identifier les permanences et les ruptures dans l’inscription territoriale des populations migrantes dans les villes ? Comment, par leurs mobilités, leurs pratiques spatiales et leurs relations avec les « autochtones », participent-ils à fabriquer la ville ? Comment l’étude de ces dynamiques migratoires et urbaines permet-elle d’éclairer d’autres processus et mécanismes sociaux ?
  • Jours 2 et 3: Chantiers urbains & Ateliers avec des binômes doctorant.es/ chercheuses/chercheurs
      • Quelques lieux de collecte : gares routières, marchés/supermarchés, restaurants, quartiers, etc.
  • Jour 4 : Restitution et pistes d’échanges 
      • Nous discuterons de la pertinence des modèles de localisation des immigrés et de ce que l’on appelle les “enclaves communautaires”, afin de comprendre à la fois la migration et les villes contemporaines africaines de manière générale. Nous dériverons les principaux défis méthodologiques liés à l’identification de ces “enclaves communautaires” et la manière dont ces questions sont abordées dans le cadre de ce projet. Nous présenterons les résultats de l’étude, à savoir la localisation et la composition sociodémographique des principaux espaces multiethniques.

Participants :

  • GERM – UGB, Sénégal : Aly Tandian, Sociologue – Pape Elimane Sakho, Géographe, UCAD – Abdou Khadre Sano, Sociologue – Serigne Sylla, Sociologue – Ndèye Coumba Diouf, Sociologue – Fatoumata Zahra Ndiaye, Sociologue – Souleymane Sow, Sociologue – Racky Diouf, Sociologue – Rokhaya Ndione, Sociologue – Hélène Nguigue – Babacar Faye
  • CNRS, France : Stefan Le Courant, Anthropologue, CNRS – Laura Guérin, post-doctorante, Sociologue, CNRS – Aïssatou Mbodj-Pouye, Anthropologue,

Cette proposition d’atelier est formulée avec l’appui du programme ReROOT (Arrival infrastructures as sites of integration for recent newcomers, H2020, consortium de recherche européen porté par l’Université Catholique de Louvain, agreement number 101004704 ). Aïssatou Mbodj-Pouye coordonne une équipe de ce programme à l’Institut des mondes africains (Aubervilliers). Lors de l’atelier, l’équipe parisienne introduira brièvement l’approche de situations migratoires par les infrastructures d’arrivée. Loin de présumer que cette approche, testée pour l’instant sur des terrains européens, soit transposable à d’autres contextes, il s’agira d’ouvrir nos boîtes à outils et d’apprendre auprès de collègues sénégalais, dans un esprit de partage des concepts et méthodes.

Programme info here:
 
http://www.germ.sn/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CHANTIERSURBAINS.pdf
 

Workshop London | UK Housing and Non-Voluntary Mobilities Workshop

INTERSECTIONS OF HOUSING AND NON-VOLUNTARY MOBILITIES IN THE
UK: DEFINING A RESEARCH AGENDA

Brady Arts and Community Centre, 192-196 Hanbury Street, London E1 5HU
Mon 9 – Tue 10 October 2023

This workshop aims to connect insights from research, professional practice or lived experience, to shed light on how systems and processes – some aiming to support, others to control – subject various groups of UK residents to forms of mobility over which they have limited or no choice. These mobilities are often intimately related to housing dynamics and fiscal austerity in the UK. This workshop seeks to understand the state of knowledge on such non-voluntary mobilities, and the future research needed to advance it. It takes inspiration from two emerging directions in scholarship.

First, there is an emerging scholarship examining how forms of urban displacement affect a range of subjects, moving our understanding of mobility beyond the statist dichotomy of “migrants” and “citizens”. The term “evictability”, for instance, captures a common vulnerability to being removed from a sheltering place (Van Baar 2017; De Genova et al., 2021). Both migrants and some formal citizens can be affected by “enforced” or “unfree” mobility within the UK, whether through involuntary asylum dispersal (Darling 2016; 2022), estate regeneration, evictions (Watt 2018; 2022; Nowicki 2023) or other mechanisms such as internal displacement of individuals and families into temporary accommodation as a result of domestic violence (Bowstead 2020; 2022).

Second, there is an emerging recognition within migration studies that common mechanisms of marginalisation exist between social groups that are conventionally studied in siloes. This recognition makes space for the emergence of new solidarities across such categories as citizen and non-citizen, migration and class (Anderson 2013; Vickers 2020). It offers potential to unite precarious citizens and immigrants in a common struggle for social justice, in the face of national governments that polarise these groups through scapegoating and discourses of deservingness.

By exploring commonalities in the experience of non-voluntary, and often structurally imposed, mobilities at the sub-national level, we hope to reveal fresh perspectives and directions for research, policy and practice in the UK, with potential to avert the marginalization of those who find themselves moved by systems and processes beyond their control. This is particularly important as policymakers and practitioners seek to respond more effectively to a range of vulnerable arrivals in local areas and to foster inclusion and equality among residents, in a context constrained by austerity, neoliberal logics and a changing array of policy and fiscal directives.

Organisers

This workshop is organised by Prof Susanne Wessendorf and Dr Tamlyn Monson as part of the Horizon-funded ReROOT project. It is co-hosted by the Centre for Trust Peace and Social Relations at Coventry University.

For more information, please contact:
Dr Tamlyn Monson

Postdoctoral Research Fellow, ReROOT project Centre for Trust, Peace and Social Relations, Coventry University

tamlyn.monson@coventry.ac.uk

 Abstracts & Programme info here:
 

 

Workshop Istanbul | Migration and Arrival in Turkey: Urban and spatial approaches

Migration and Arrival in Turkey: Urban and spatial approaches

30 September 2023

Istanbul, Turkey

Scholars studying the intersections of migration and the city have long been interested in the notion of urban arrival spaces, which essentially refer to urban localities that cater necessary information, and provide (affordable) accommodation, employment, and networks to newcomer migrants (Hanhörster and Wessendorf 2020; Hans and Hanhörster 2020; Schillebeeckx, Oosterlynck, and De Decker 2019). This interest goes back as far as the Chicago School on Urban Sociology (Park, Burgess and McKenzie 1925) which developed the idea of  “transition zones” as ports of first entry from where migrant newcomers transition to other neighborhoods. Doug Saunders’s now popular book Arrival City (2011) revived these debates on arrival conditions and integration processes of migrant newcomers. Today many arrival areas are characterized as socioeconomically disadvantaged urban neighborhoods with high concentrations of migrants and high rates of fluctuations. They function as hubs within cities where the aggregation of resources, services, and networks for new arrivals can be found. In the more recent decade, scholars have also started talking about the concept of arrival infrastructures, taking again a similar spatial approach while also emphasizing the role of different actors (e.g. long established local residents, brokers, civil society actors, public authorities) and institutions (e.g. small businesses, religious institutions, leisure organizations) in facilitating the urban incorporation of relatively newly arrived migrants (Hanhörster and Wessendorf 2020; Meeus, Arnaut, and van Heur 2019).  Overall, these approaches push scholars to explore the relationship between arrival spaces and broader national and/or urban integration frameworks from a more critical lens (ibid.).

Turkey presents an apt case for exploring these various dimensions, although there has been limited academic debate on this topic to date. Across Turkey’s different cities, there are urban areas that have served as arrival destinations for different and successive internal and international migration flows over several decades, some even with a history extending into the Ottoman period. The arrival of a high number of Syrian refugees over the last decade has also led to the emergence of entirely new arrival spaces in cities with little previous migration histories. With the dramatic changes in Turkey’s role as a migrant-receiving country, there are increasing efforts to govern the spatial distribution of migrant and refugee populations. A notable example is the dispersion policy that was introduced by the Presidency of Migration Management in Turkey starting in 2021, which today has halted the registration of foreign nationals in 1,169 neighborhoods across Turkey. This state-initiated intervention noticeably targets arrival areas, opening the question of how this policy is impacting the urban incorporation processes of newcomer migrants.

In this one-day workshop, we will discuss the emergence and transformation of arrival areas in Turkey and will explore the following questions:

  • How are old arrival areas in Turkey being transformed through recent migrations?
  • What new arrival areas (including non-urban areas such as small towns and rural areas) and infrastructures do we see emerging across Turkey?
  • How do different actors shape arrival?
  • How have recent changes (social, legal, technological) and crises (pandemics, wars, natural disasters such as earthquakes) shaped arrival in Turkey?
  • What are the methodological and ethical challenges, opportunities, and limitations in analyzing arrival from below and through an everyday lens?

Within this workshop, there is also a scope to move beyond these themes/questions, providing additional perspectives and critiques on the notion of ‘arrival’ in itself as a term within and outside the boundaries of urban spaces. We hope this workshop fosters open and diverse dialogue with scholars across disciplines, career levels, and localities. We aspire to move this dialogue beyond Western-centric conceptions of arrival and bring in empirically rich, theoretically substantial, and methodologically innovative research discussion.

This workshop is funded by EU Horizon 2020 project ReROOT: Arrival Infrastructures as Sites of Integration for the Newcomers (https://rerootproject.eu) and organized in collaboration with the Association for Migration Research (Göç Araştırmaları Derneği https://gocarastirmalaridernegi.org/en/ ).

The workshop will be held in a hybrid format. There will be simultaneous (English-Turkish) translation.

 Register here:
https://www.gocarastirmalaridernegi.org/en/events/workshops-and-conferences/336-migration-and-arrival-in-turkey-urban-and-spatial-approaches
 

Workshop Greece: Round Table in Katerini

The Laboratory of Economic Policy and Strategic Planning of the Department of Economics of the University of Thessaly, in collaboration with local stakeholders of the city of Katerini, organized a Workshop & Round Table on the topic:

The labor market as an ‘arrival infrastructure’ for newcomers. The role of local communities. 

The action carried out under the research project “ReROOT: Arrival Infrastructures as Sites of Integration for Recent Newcomers” (https://rerootproject.eu/), which is funded by Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program of the European Union.

The event took place at the premises of the NGO “Perichoresis” (31 Nikomidias street, Social Grocery Building of the Evangelical Church, in Katerini) on Tuesday, June 20th, 2023 (World Refugee Day) from 17:00 to 21:30.

The event started with a presentation of the ReROOT project, where its objectives and structure were outlined, and then the participants were informed about the scope, purpose, organization and conduct of the specific meeting. This was followed by the workshop which took the form of multiple discussions on issues related to:

  • The labour market, focusing on the local needs and employment opportunities for recent migrants and refugees.
  • The possibilities for networking and integration of these people with reference multiple contexts (such as the labour market, social life, education) and groups (particularly, “natives” and former migrants).

The event was concluded with a round table discussion where the main points arising from the discussions were presented and discussed on the whole.

The event was co-organised with two key stakeholders actively engaged in the issue of migration in Katerini, the Perichoresis NGO and the grassroots Voluntary Action Group “My place” – “Kapnikos Stathmos”. Apart from them the meeting was participated by other key actors involved in migrants’ integration, including: members of the Migrant and Refugee Integration Council (ΣΕΜΠ) of the Municipality of Katerini, a representative from the Labour Centre of Katerini and residents from the immigrant communities.

It is important to note that representatives of the Development Agency of the Municipality of Karditsa (ANKA), which has a central role in the integration of immigrants and refugees in the city of Karditsa, also participated, transferring the experiences, knowledge and good practices that have been developed in Karditsa regarding “newcomers”.

Preliminary Results & Conclusions

 

The first thematic module of the workshop focused on the labour market in the region of Katerini. The main research question concerned the needs of the local labour market and the level of its interconnection with the newcomers and immigrants in general. The issues discussed concerned the gaps in the labour supply, their size and in which sectors/industries they are located, the form of employment (part-time, seasonal, etc.) and the specific employee characteristics required to fill these gaps (e.g. age, specialization, competences, skills) and whether they can be filled by new migrants and refugees. In addition, the participants discussed about the business activities in the city and shared their views on the existence of market opportunities – gaps in the market for newcomers to start a business venture. On this particular issue, the experience of Karditsa was particularly useful, where the representatives of ANKA presented how ANKA supports immigrants/refugees with counselling and other services in their efforts to set up a business.

The second module of the workshop dealt with the issue of networking and integration of newcomers, exploring the kind of interface that exists between newcomers and the local society and who is considered to be “integratable“. The discussion focused on issues related to formal aspects of integration, such as the oportunities and weaknesses of the institutional and legal framework, but also about the existing, old established or newly emerged stereotypes regarding newcomers. Furthermore, the discussion explored issues related to the general socio- economic profile of the natives, the personal experiences of participants in their contact with newcomers, and the existence (or lack) of organized procedures – “infrastructures” for the integration of newcomers in Katerini.

The meeting concluded with a discussion on the potential of the labour market to provide an interface, a channel το bring the local society and the newcomers closer together, facilitating the development of a more holistic, cooperative and integrative perspective.

Closing it should be noted that the specific action was a step in this direction, initiating the development of a platform where immigration stakeholders can connect, share experiences and knowledge, collaborate and support one another. Indeed, the action succeeded to get in touch different actors and interested parties in the city of Katerini, who although deeply involved in migration and refugee issues are hardly aware of each other’s work, giving them the opportunity to exchange views and experiences and explore avenues of cooperation. Furthermore, the action facilitated to bring in contact the cities of Karditsa and Katerini, highlighting the fact that they face the same challenges but approach them from different perspectives, and that sharing experiences would be beneficial for both of them.

In the light of the success of the meeting, all attendees committed to meet again in early autumn, in order to continue the discussion scaling it up with the participation of more stakeholders and actors from the local society.

 

On behalf of the research team Professor Paschalis Arvanitidis

Director of the Economic Policy and Strategic Planning Laboratory 

Department of Economics, University of Thessaly

 

The Current Atmosphere of Migration in Hungary

Márton Bisztrai | Menedék Association | 30 May 2023

Within the ReROOT project, our team at the Menedék Association focuses on the arrival infrastructure of third-country nationals in the Hungarian higher education system. These arrival infrastructures do not emerge in a vacuum but in a specific atmosphere of Hungary’s migration scene. This blog will present the different interests of two major political areas setting this scene, e.g. 1) the area of ‘migration’ power politics and 2) the area of migration realpolitik. 

It might be confusing that one will not find two opposing entities behind the duality of seemingly controversial areas. Instead, it is the same united political power, FIDESZ, the governing party.

The media and political decision-makers often interpret Hungary’s migration atmosphere incompletely. In most cases, the statements are driven by morality, political agendas, and ideologies. For instance, voices that criticise the Hungarian government often use expressions like “anti-migration regime,” “evilness,” “political schizophrenia,” or “cognitive dissonance” – just as if we were dealing with a “lunatic.” Pro-government supporters comment on the same acts with words such as “braveness,” “defence,” “patriotism,” and “nationalism.”

Nevertheless, from our perspective, there is no cognitive dissonance within this unity. Rather, we witness the – in terms of their interests – logical behavioural patterns of the government.

Area of power politics – thematisation of public opinion

This consists of the tireless and continuous one-way political campaign (since 2015) that is aimed at the public. It refuses and stigmatises “migration” and discusses it in a framework of fear, national sovereignty, and conflict (or even war) of civilisations. 

The propaganda tools and resources used by the government in the last eight years are countless. Here we show only two of these examples (one of the earliest and one of the latest) to illustrate the intensity and rhetoric of Orbán’s power politics.

In the spring of 2015, under the umbrella of National Consultation, the government sent a questionnaire to Hungarian households with the eloquent title Immigration and Terrorism. One example from the twelve questions: Did you know that subsistence immigrants cross the Hungarian borders illegally, and in the recent past, the number of immigrants in Hungary increased twentyfold? 

And the results were: 72,63% marked the answer Yes, 23,45% I have heard about it, and 3.91% marked I did not know.

In July 2022, at the youth-political-cultural summer fest in Tusványos (Romania), Orbán gave a one-hour speech to the public. He mentioned migration among the most pressing challenges that the country is currently facing. And he went further.

“The internationalist left has a trick: they claim that nations living in Europe are originally mixed race. This is a deception because it bonds different issues. Because there are places where the European nations are mixing with those who arrive from outside Europe. Well, this is the mixed-race world. And we are here where European nations are mixing with each other. This is why, for example, in the Carpathian Basin, we are not mixed-race, only a mix of nations living in their own European home. (…) We are willing to mix with each other, but we do not want to become a mixed race; this is why we stopped the Turkish in Wien, and if I am right, this is why the French back in the old times stopped the Arabs at Pointers.”

These question-shaped, contextless statements, Orbán’s speeches and all the other propagandistic elements applied by the government are logical and play well in the power politics, from at least two angles. First, a mass of citizens, supporters, and potential voters resonate with it. And second, it is suitable to overshadow pressing and uncomfortable political and socioeconomically questions. 

The message is that “migration is bad. Therefore, we must prevent and stop migration and not support or manage it.” This political discourse (in this case, the one-way delivery of messages) dominates Hungary’s public opinion. 

Power politics use “migrant” or “migration” arbitrarily. It links them with concepts of illegal border crossing, non-Christian, non-European, non-white intruders, potential criminals, and essential threats.

The strategy proved to be successful. In 2018 and 2022, FIDESZ won the parliamentary elections by an overwhelming margin. Using “migration” helps them to create an ongoing conflict (a ground where they communicate power and success) with the EU authorities, civil society, and other Hungarian political parties. They successfully keep alive the concept that Hungary is under constant attack, and only the current regime can repel it. Illusion, perception, reality, lie? Not relevant. The only relevance is its extreme success.

This strategy defined the last years with such power that government could not stay only in the fields of symbolic propaganda and noise-making. The messages appeared in the legislation as well, matching the atmosphere created by these symbolic messages. For example, in 2016 Orbán initiated a constitutional amendment. The draft included such lines as Alien nations cannot settle in Hungary. In the end, the proposal did not receive the needed parliamentary support. Therefore, in 2018 the “Stop Soros Amendments” took place, which have three major elements: “(a) The law on the social responsibility of organisations support illegal migration; (b) The law on the immigration funding levy; (c) The law on immigration detention.”

The same year the government blocked civil society organisations and other service providers access to the EU’s Asylum, Migration, and Integration Funds.

It is hence not surprising that the number of refugees has dramatically declined. Since 2000 the authorities have recognised the international protection need for approximately 10 000 people. According to the last (2022) statistics, 2 500 remained in Hungary. At the same time, however, the appearance of propaganda symbols in legislation did not curb the number of newly arriving foreigners. There are no less veiled Muslim women taking their children to the playgrounds in Budapest or no less Sub-Saharan African men walking in countryside towns. There are no fewer Iranian tenants in Budapest’s rental sector, and the Georgian, Vietnamese or Mongolian workers have not disappeared from the construction sites of the priority industrial investments—instead, the contrary.

The Central Statistical Office says that in 2015, 145 000 foreign citizens were living in Hungary, and by 2022 their number was 202 000. The increasing arrival of third-country nationals primarily causes the 40% growth.

The second competitor: the area of realpolitik – interests, needs, and solutions

The area of realpolitik concerns political actions, responses, and solutions that are based on economic needs, demographical trends, and diplomatic challenges. Whereas in the area of powerpolitics the government successfully uses (abuses) the word “migration” when engaging with its potential voters. In other segments, realpolitik uses, encourages, and organises migration to respond to demography-related economic challenges. First of all, Hungarian society is ageing. During the last forty years, the population decrease has been permanent. Secondly, according to the estimation of the Statistical Office, 350 000 Hungarian citizens left the country during the last ten years. The UN International Migration Stock estimates a higher ratio. And lastly, approximately 15 000 Hungarian youths are enrolled in foreign higher education. As a result, state investments, industry, service sector, agriculture, and food industries face labour shortages. Therefore, it is unsurprising that inbound labour migration has grown parallel to emigration. In 2015 the authorities registered 39 000 foreign workers. In 2022 under the same legal framework 74 000 people were registered. During the same period, the number of international students increased by 50%, from 20 000 to 32 000. Behind this significant growth is the state that stepped up as the primary recruiter. 

For example, in 2013 the Hungarian government announced a large-scale scholarship system called Stipendium Hungaricum that offers education programs in local universities to third-country nationals. Currently, 12 300 scholarship-holder students (primarily from the Middle East, North Africa, Post-Soviet countries, and South East Asia) study in universities in Budapest and rural towns.

Stipendium Hungaricum is neither initiated nor led by the universities or representatives of education politics. Instead, it is driven and implemented under the control of the Foreign Ministry and the umbrella of the “Opening to the East” policy in the form of bilateral interstate agreements.

Whereas power politics symbolically and physically blocked the asylum channel from Syrians, Yemenis, Iraqis, Kosovars, Pakistanis, Nigerians, Myanmarese, Iranians, etc, the student mobility channel has been opened to young citizens, often from the mentioned countries at the same time. 

Stipendium Hungaricum beneficiaries receive tuition-free education at undergraduate, master’s, and PhD levels. The language of study is English, and monthly financial support is also part of the package. 

Meanwhile, foreign relations within the EU are worsening, and diplomatic links are strengthening outside the EU. Although the quality of higher education (with few exceptions) is not in competition with Western institutions, the spread of English-based education resulted in organic development. It attracts more and more fee-paying international students. International students as a whole (Stipendium Hungaricum, Erasmus+, fee-paying) create financial profit for the national economy.

From the perspective of many applicants, the advantage of the Hungarian offer is the English curriculum, the stipend, and that “Hungary is Europe.” Although Hungary is an arrival country towards a Western European context, more students try to prolong their stay here by continuing studies at a higher level or searching for employment. This phenomenon may contradict the original concept of the scholarship. When launching the program, the Foreign Ministry made the objectives clear: students return to their home countries after graduation, help to develop bilateral diplomatic relations, engage in transnational economic or academic activities, and in general, spread the good image of Hungary. The long-term integration of foreign students was not on the agenda.

In conclusion, power politics dressed in an ideological costume and realpolitik compete. The slogans used in Orbán’s rhetoric – like “mixed race” and “If you come to Hungary, you cannot take the job of Hungarians” – echo in other fields of migration. At the same time, realpolitik is working behind the scenes and, for example, introducing changes in the immigration policy that make the students’ transition easier towards the labour market (however, still tricky).

The Hungarian government supports and organises the arrival of third-country nationals in some areas, for example, in higher education and the labour market. It is a benefit-oriented, highly controlled form of migration that keeps people in a state of temporality. Created by realpolitik, several entry points and migration channels led to Hungary. At the same time, an anti-integration ideology is in place (painfully visible in the public rhetoric). Both of these areas are blocking the settlement, permanence, integration, and “mixing”.

 
Share

No Recourse to Public Funds – Finally a Voice?

By Tamlyn Monson I Coventry University | 11 May 2023

Wednesday 26 April 2023 saw the launch of a guidance document on supporting Barking & Dagenham residents who are subject to the ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ (NRPF) condition. The audience included representatives of the council and voluntary sector, and a number of residents with lived experience. I was among several members attending from a local network aimed at improving support for migrants in the borough, an initiative supported by BD_Collective – a network of networks that supports change in the borough. Also attending were members from various local community and support organisations, including Ultimate Counselling, The Source, Community Resources and Marks Gate Relief Project.

The NRPF condition is a restriction imposed by the Home Office on immigrants to the UK, which prevents them from accessing the ordinary safety net of state welfare support that citizens and formally ‘settled’ people can if they are faced with hardship or destitution. Being subject to the NRPF condition is particularly difficult for anyone who falls on hard times, becomes homeless, loses their job, or – in the case of an asylum seeker for instance – is not permitted to work due to Home Office Policy. Together with work restrictions imposed by the Home Office, the NRPF condition creates structural inequalities within the populations these organisations serve, inequalities that cannot be fully addressed at the local level, although their impacts are felt locally. So the NRPF condition also poses difficulties for council and voluntary sector services seeking an inclusive approach to supporting residents.

My year of ethnographic research in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham in 2021-22 showed how the needs of such residents often remain under the radar. It also suggested that service providers are often unclear what support is legally permitted, and what is actually available locally, to people with no recourse to public funds. As the first step to fill this gap, this guidance is a cause for celebration. It was co-produced through a Place-Based Partnership of council and voluntary, community and social enterprise (VCSE) stakeholders, with Dagenham-based refugee-led organisation Ultimate Counselling leading an engagement with 157 residents subject to NRPF conditions and conducting a survey of 131 frontline staff.

When Ultimate Counselling director Sarah Kasule shared the key themes that emerged from focus groups with residents, I noticed strong overlaps with ReROOT* research findings on barriers and enablers for new arrivals in the borough. I highlight three of them below.

Residents’ Language Capacities

My research for ReROOT found that this is a borough where many residents struggle to speak, read or understand English, but signposting – both verbal and visual – is seldom multilingual. In addition to this, key helplines of the NHS and Citizens Advice Bureau do not feature the option of interpretation before launching into recorded English messages that must be navigated to access them. Hospitals issue jargon-laden letters in English to families who cannot understand their content. Landlords of dispersed asylum housing expect asylum seeker residents to simply sign tenancy agreements written in complex English regardless of their language proficiency.  Significantly, against this backdrop, Sarah Kasule announced that this guidance document will be made available in the main languages spoken by participants in the co-production.

Barriers of Knowledge and Digital Access

Lack of digital literacy and lack of local know-how were key blockages which came up over and over again in my research for ReROOT. Sarah Kasule highlighted similar barriers for many residents with the NRPF condition. She highlighted how lack of access to smart devices, data or digital literacy were key barriers to accessing statutory services, and pointed to residents’ lack of knowledge in terms of both what they were entitled to or how to navigate systems to solve housing problems for instance. This resonated strongly with findings from the ethnographic research, where I met people who were unaware that they could access free primary healthcare, or incorrectly believed they could not access the Citizens’ Advice Bureau because the organisation’s name suggested that the service was for ‘Citizens’ only.

The Role of Social Connections

Another finding from ReROOT research was that the right social connections can help offset the barriers of language, digital access and know-how, but that many marginalised newcomers did not have the social connections they needed to overcome these barriers. In a similar way, Sarah Kasule highlighted the theme of social isolation, noting for example that many participants in the focus groups did not have friends or family to help them when they arrived, and that asylum seekers arriving alone in dispersed accommodation were given no support to form connections in the local area . She illustrated the important role of social connections when she explained that knowledge gaps often persist because residents with no recourse to public funds are socially isolated, or because the people that they know are also unaware of their rights and entitlements.

The two hour event was eye-opening for some attendees because it included residents whose lives and challenges are usually out of sight. Single parents had to bring their children to the event, including a child with special educational needs, which brought some noise, challenging behaviour, and interruptions of mothers’ participation. The barrier to inclusion caused by lack of childcare support was tangible. A group of homeless non-English speaking men were present, and an interpreter communicated their desperate request for help with GP registration and more toilets in Barking. The latter request in particular seemed to cause confusion, perhaps because the majority of attendees have homes, and are less dependent on public water and sanitation infrastructure. It was clear that few attendees shared the experience of one man I spoke to during my research. He was sleeping under a bridge, in an area with no 24-hour toilet. At night, when the local shopping centre and library were closed, he would have had no choice but to suffer the indignity of urinating or defecating outside. Yet, rather than empathy, he received a notice that treated these indignities as a form of anti-social behaviour he was committing. He was forbidden to sleep there anymore.

Fortunately, the voices of participants were heard. Head of Universal Services, Zoinul Abidin, responded in closing that the council would consider the toilet question, and would also consider bringing GPs to community hubs to register new patients who were struggling to access them. Together with the commitment by the council’s Director of Community Participation and Engagement, Rhodri Rowlands, to keep the NRPF guidance document alive by revisiting it in 12 months time, it was reassuring to see this expression of Barking & Dagenham’s commitment to the council’s vision of ‘No one left behind: we all belong.’

 
Share